The Primary Law of Intelligent Immigration Policy
By Daniel Miessler on April 22nd, 2007: Tagged as Culture | Immigration | Multiculturalism | Philosophy
First, answer two questions:
- What is our country? What defines it? What parts could not be removed without it becoming something different? If a country has not identified what it truly is, it will have no way of knowing if it has lost itself.
- Do we have the cohesion and political strength to defend this identity? Are we too cowardly to acknowledge the fact that we love what we are, and that we don’t want it to change? If so, we are already doomed.
“Overall, I prefer your country to where I came from. Please let me partake of it.”As such, allowing incoming populations to modify the existing system puts at risk the very set of conditions that made the receiving country desirable in the first place. Any country that fails to define and defend this identity is doomed to become a collection of countries rather than a strong, unified entity benefiting from the myriad advantages of diversity.:
--
It isn’t as simple as that.
Group A comes because there are freedoms of expression. Group B comes because there is freedom of religion. Group C comes because there are higher paying jobs here.
People who come to freely express themselves probably don’t interfere too much with the status quo. Neither do those who come to freely practice their religion. But, if too many come seeking higher paying jobs, the laws of supply and demand kick in. A too rapid influx of people seeking jobs (at the current level of job availability) result in more competition for those jobs which will result in (in many cases) lower pay. Of course job availability will grow as the population grows (we’ll need more restaurants, groceries, etc.), but there is a time lag. So, if the population growth is TOO fast, the economy can’t absorb the influx without being impacted. So, unless you were aiming at “we need to control the rate of immigration so we can remain attractive to future potential immigrants (and to those already here),” I’ll have to disagree with you.
Comment by Carl M — 4/22/2007 @ 2:59 pm
I’ll be expanding on the idea in the near future. I’m still working on the wording for now… But thanks for the comments; I’ll keep those in mind as I go forward.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 4/22/2007 @ 3:32 pm
I think there’s a jump from “Your country is better than where I came from” to “Your country is perfect and must never be changed”
Unrelatedly, I think that even current citizens who are on the whole happy with the country and don’t wish to live anywhere else may, quite rightly, want to improve things in order to adapt to changed circumstances or new understandings - eg, to abolish slavery, give women/blacks voting rights.
Put the two together: it’s not at all unreasonable that someone may prefer to live in your country than in their own country, but still have things about your country they’d like to see changed.
(Not intended as disagreement with you, but intended as constructive criticism to help you refine your position and/or word it better. Sorry if it doesn’t read that way, that’s my fault).
Unrelatedly again: have you heard anything about our goverment’s hairbrained scheme to discourage “illegal immigrants” to our fine country, with the threat that instead of being allowed to come here they’ll get shipped off to your fine country instead?
Comment by zhasper — 4/22/2007 @ 9:29 pm
I would prefer living in Bill Gates’ house.
Should I just move in?
Should I eat his food?
Should I use his credit card?
Will he be happy if I do?
How about if my bothers and friends do too?
The ants outside would really prefer to live in my kitchen. Should I let them in?
If illegals were really desirable, then other countries would be competeing for them.
Comment by Ugly American — 4/24/2007 @ 5:19 pm